Three Board Members who are not conflicted in any way are sufficient to form the negotiating team and may directly participate in negotiations.Advice permitting a Board member, whose spouse is a teacher's aide, to serve on the Negotiating Committee has been superseded by A25-14; consequently, that part of A55-95 Advisory Opinion is no longer considered valid guidance.

Superintendent whose daughter-in-law is employed by the board and a member of the local education association may not serve as chief spokesperson for the board in contract negotiations, but may provide critical information.

Business Administrator/Board Secretary whose contract provided that he will receive a percentage of teachers' settlement will not violate the act by serving as a resource during contract negotiations with teachers.

Board members may discuss and vote on a proposal to give greater weight to certain courses, but may not vote on whether to make proposal retroactive when retroactivity would give their children who are juniors a greater benefit.

Business Administrator/Board Secretary would not violate the Act by being a member of the New Jersey Association of School Business Officials (NJASBO) if her Board votes to participate in an investment program that the NJASBO plans to sponsor.

1) A Board member with sister-in-law in the local bargaining unit would not violate the Act by voting on the contract; 2) Board attorney must advise that board members with a conflict of interest with one unit may vote on the contract of another unit if the contract provisions are not based on the settlement of the other.

Non-voting members of the board of trustees of a charter school who held positions as officers on the board could not simultaneously hold a contract with the charter school to provide financial services or be employed by the charter school without violating N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(d) of the School Ethics Act.

Two Board members who are either members of the NJEA or have spouses who are members of the NJEA may participate in the hearing on a teacher's grievance alleging that the number of students that she has been assigned is impacting on her workload without violating N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) of the School Ethics Act. However, the one Board member who has a daughter who teaches in the district would violate the act if he were to participate in the hearing of the grievance.

Interim Superintendent and Business Administrator who have spouses who teach in another school district and are members of the same statewide general union as the teachers in the administrators' district may provide technical financial and insurance information, but should not act as negotiators for the board.

Board member whose spouse is a founder of a proposed charter school that will serve children from his district does not have a conflict in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a) the Act, but should abstain from any discussions and votes whether to recommend the creation of the school.

Board attorneys, who are not employees of school districts who make recommendations regarding hiring or the purchase of property or services, are not "school officials" subject to the School Ethics Act.

Board member whose spouse is employed as a teacher in another district may not negotiate with teachers in his district who are affiliated with the same statewide general union, although the spouse has no NJEA affiliation and does not pay a representation fee.

To the extent the Commission's past advisories dealing with the search for and selection of a new Superintendent are inconsistent with the determination in Martinez v. Albolino, C45-11 (June 27, 2012), this advisory is no longer considered valid guidance.

Board member would not violate the Act if he or she served as President of the local Parent Teachers' Association in the same district, but would be prohibited from voting on matters involving the PTA, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c), representing the PTA before the Board, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(g), or using information not available to the public for the financial gain of the PTA, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(f).

This Advisory Opinion has been superseded by Martinez v. Albolino, C45-11 (June 27, 2012) as well as the decisions and other advisory opinions which followed; therefore, it is no longer considered valid advice.

This Advisory Opinion has been superseded by Martinez v. Albolino, C45-11 (June 27, 2012) as well as the decisions and other advisory opinions which followed; therefore, it is no longer considered valid advice.

Board member would violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) of the Act if he were to participate in negotiations or vote on a contract with the local education association when his brother holds a position in the maintenance department and is a member of the local education association in the district in which he serves.

Board members would violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) of the Act if they were to participate in negotiations and vote on the contract with the teachers' association when their spouses are teacher aides in the district. Board member who is also Board president would not violate the subsection by appointing the chairperson and/or members of the negotiations committee.

To the extent the Commission's past advisories dealing with the search for and selection of a new Superintendent are inconsistent with the determination in Martinez v. Albolino, C45-11 (June 27, 2012), this advisory is no longer considered valid guidance.

Board member would violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) of the Act if she were to participate in discussions and vote on the reappointment of the Board attorney or the payment of the attorney's bills when the attorney prepared a simple will and powers of attorney for the Board member and her spouse.

Board member who is the executive director of a company that is the landlord to a charter school would not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(d) if she were to serve as a trustee of a charter school. However, she would violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) if she were to participate in discussions or vote on matters having to do with the lease or future purchase of property.

Board members who have immediate family members who are employed in a school district that receives the Board's students would violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) of the Act if they were to vote to approve the tuition contract with the receiving school district for the Board's students to attend the receiving school district.

A Board member whose brother-in-law teaches in another school district would not violate the Act if he were to participate in negotiations with the local education association. The Doctrine of Necessity should not be invoked to allow the entire Board to participate in negotiations when there are three Board members without conflicts who may serve as the negotiating committee. Third, the Business Administrator whose spouse is an NJEA member may provide technical assistance to the Board without invoking the Doctrine of Necessity.

Three Board members who were endorsed by the local teachers' association in the 2001 election would not violate the School Ethics Act if they were to participate in upcoming negotiations involving the local education association or vote on the collective bargaining agreement. However, the three Board members who were endorsed by the association in 2002 would violate the Act if they were to negotiate and vote.

The Commission advised that a school official would violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(e) of the School Ethics Act if he were to accept funding from a District vendor that consisted of travel, meals and accommodations to an educational event that the vendor sponsors, even if the school official were serving as a presenter.

Board president who is a member of an NJEA affiliate in another district and spouse to an NJEA member in the same district would not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) by signing the retainer agreement for the law firm, signing the collective bargaining agreement, or signing off on the monthly bill list which includes payment to the labor negotiators, or the payroll certification which authorizes payment to district employees.

Board member would not violate the Act if he continued his employment with an architectural firm that is contracted by the Board, but he must recuse himself from all discussions, actions, resolutions and votes pertaining to the area of architecture.

Board member would not violate the Act if she served as a co-facilitator of a Special Education Parent Discussion Group, but should remain mindful of her duty to maintain the confidentiality of any information that she acquires by reason of her office.

Board member whose spouse is employed as a teacher in the school district would not violate the Act by receiving medical benefits through the district for which he serves. He must abstain from all matters involving the local teachers' association and all issues related to the employment of his spouse.

Board member would not violate the Act by appealing a Section 504 determination regarding her child and pursuing tuition and legal fees because N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(j) provides an exception. However, she would violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) if she were to participate in discussions and vote on matters involving the Section 504 determination.

Board member, whose sister is a teacher in another school district and is a member of the same statewide union with which the board negotiates, would not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) by participating in negotiations with the local education association.

Board member, who is employed as a police officer in the city where the district is located, would violate the N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a) and (d) of the Act if she were to be appointed by her employer as the district's School Resource Officer and maintain her seat on the board. In addition, she could violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) and (j) due to her extensive contacts with students and staff.

Board members would violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) if they were to participate in evaluations, personnel actions and compensation for the principals who supervise their spouses, the Director of Elementary Education (for board member A only) and the Superintendent. The Commission advised the board members to recuse themselves and not to participate in any discussions regarding the above matters.

To the extent the Commission's past advisories dealing with the search for and selection of a new Superintendent are inconsistent with the determination in Martinez v. Albolino, C45-11 (June 27, 2012), this advisory is no longer considered valid guidance.

Board member would not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) or (g) if he were to send a letter to the editor expressing his opinion about the budget as long as he does not hold himself out as a board member, to indicate that the opinion is his and not that of the board, and the information therein is accurate and not confidential.

Board member with a spouse who is a teacher's assistant in the district would violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) if he were to participate in the hiring and any employment issues regarding the superintendent, where the assistant superintendent supervises the board member's spouse's supervisor and is a candidate for superintendent.

To the extent the Commission's past advisories dealing with the search for and selection of a new Superintendent are inconsistent with the determination in Martinez v. Albolino, C45-11 (June 27, 2012), this advisory is no longer considered valid guidance.

This Advisory Opinion has been superseded by Martinez v. Albolino, C45-11 (June 27, 2012) as well as the decisions and other advisory opinions which followed; therefore, it is no longer considered valid advice.

The Commission advised four board members who have various family members and/or relatives working in the district whether or not they would violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) by participating in the search for a new superintendent, the interview process for the potential candidates, contract negotiations, the hiring of the new superintendent and employment issues related to the new superintendent.

To the extent the Commission's past advisories dealing with the search for and selection of a new Superintendent are inconsistent with the determination in Martinez v. Albolino, C45-11 (June 27, 2012), this advisory is no longer considered valid guidance.

The Commission clarified its advice given in A02-06 and advised that a board member would not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) or (g) by sending a letter to the editor expressing his opinion about the budget as long as, in the letter, he identifies himself as a board member and indicates that the letter is not authorized by nor written on behalf of the board, and he provides accurate information that is not confidential, and he ensures that his private action does not compromise the board.

Board member whose spouse is a security guard in the district could not participate in the in the search for, and hiring of, a new superintendent, if the director of education becomes a candidate for the position of superintendent, because the director of education is familiar with the board member's spouse by virtue of his or her indirect supervision of the spouse.

This Advisory Opinion has been superseded by Martinez v. Albolino, C45-11 (June 27, 2012) as well as the decisions and other advisory opinions which followed; therefore, it is no longer considered valid advice.

The Commission advised that a board member would violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) if he were to participate in the evaluation of the Superintendent where, prior to his becoming a board member, his employment with the district was terminated as a result of a decision made by the Superintendent.

The Commission advised that two board members, one whose spouse was employed as a secretary in the district and the other whose spouse was employed as a caller of substitutes in the district, would not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c). If they were to participate in the discussion and adoption of the board's goals and objectives for the superintendent as long as those goals and objectives do not touch upon the employment of the board members' spouses.

The Commission advised that a board member would not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c), if s/he were to serve as a paid sports official at athletic meets in the district in which s/he serves, given: an "assignor" is responsible for assigning officials to officiate athletic events; all sports officials are assigned through an assignor and sports officials do not solicit assignments; board member would receive compensation from the district for your officiating duties, but such compensation has been negotiated by the league for school athletic directors for all area sports for both high schools and middle schools.

No more than one or two Board members may participate on a personnel committee, when it is established by the CSA and coordinated by a member of the administrative staff. However, the Board member participant(s) is strictly limited to offering his/her observations and assessments, with full knowledge that final recommendations are wholly within the purview of the Superintendent. The Board members should be mindful of their obligations under N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) and (d), as participation in such a committee may put the Board members in situations to violate those subsections.

School board member, whose son is a custodial employee, may participate in negotiations for administrators unless some relationship exists that links the administrators' contract to the custodians' contract, providing a benefit, advantage, profit or gain to the son.

Board member, whose husband and brother work in the district, may not participate in closed session discussions and performance evaluation of either of the direct administrators or the central administration evaluations of the superintendent or assistant superintendents. Moreover, the Board member may not review any of the executive minutes, sit in on or be advised of the negotiation of committee's updates unless the information is also available to the general public. Finally, the Board member may not participate in an executive session that considers the administrators' positions in schools in which the brother or husband teaches. Doing so would violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g).

The Commission finds that since there are four members on the Board who are not conflicted, then they may serve as the selection committee for the new Superintendent; therefore, the Doctrine of Necessity may not be invoked during the hiring process. Additionally, consistent with the Commission's determination in Martinez v, Albolino, SEC Dkt. No. C45-11 (June 26, 2012) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c), the members with conflicts are prohibited from any involvement in the pre-hiring or post-hiring employment issues of the Superintendent.

A Board member whose daughter is a co-coach in the District may not participate in evaluating the Superintendent and must recuse himself from any committee issue, policy discussion or vote wherein there is any potential benefit for the daughter as the benefit is inextricably linked not only to the Superintendent in his/her role during negotiations, but also to the Superintendent as an administrator. N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c).

Board members who have "a prior bad history" consistent with A06-08 and who are involved with current outside litigation with the Superintendent must recuse themselves from any discussion, decision, vote or action related to the Superintendent or violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b).

Board members must recuse themselves from any discussion, decision, vote or action related to the Superintendent when: 1) a spouse is employed by another organization which contracts with the District or violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c); or, 2) a brother-in-law is employed by the District as a custodian or violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b).

Multiple violations of the School Ethics Act would occur if a Board member were to survey the Board and Superintendent, interview three Board members, anonymously survey all teachers in the District or conduct focus groups with teachers to fulfill a requirement of the Board member's doctoral program research.

A Board member may not be employed – even on a part-time basis – by a District, which has a shared services agreement with the District on which the individual sits as a Board member. A Board member in such a situation must relinquish one of the two positions or violate N.J.S.A.18A:12-24(c).

Multiple violations of the School Ethics Act would occur if a Board member who owns and operates a private consulting service for the benefit of students were to offer the services to students in the District as a volunteer or for profit.

A Board member who works for the local police department or who has a spouse who works for the local police department which has a shared services agreement with the District must recuse him/herself from any discussion or vote on any matter regarding the shared services agreement. Additionally, the member may not vote on any non-itemized bills for payment to the police department for the services provided to the District. N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c).

A Board member who sits on a Board that recently entered into a joint services agreement with another district must resign from the Board to avoid a violation of N.J.S.A.18A:12-24(c) if she successfully obtains employment with the other district as a result of a job search which began prior to the agreement coming into affect.

A Board member whose spouse works for a Government Authority which does business with the Board/District and who was formerly employed by the Authority must recuse him/herself from matters related to the relationship between the Board/District and the Government Authority/its Commissioner to avoid violating N.J.S.A.18A:12-24(c).

Board members must recuse themselves from participation in negotiations with the local union affiliate or in other matters related to their duties on the Board if: 1) the member is employed by the NJEA; or, 2) the member is employed by County Special Services with which the local board of education has a number of contracts for classified student services.

A Board member who is not married but has been in a long-term personal relationship and cohabitates with an employee of the District creates a conflict for the Board member under application of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b).

Board members must recuse themselves from negotiations, employment discussions and voting on teacher contracts when a member of the teaching staff covered by those matters is a local town council member and the Board members are employed by the municipality governed by the council on which the teacher sits. N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and (c).

A Board member would violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and (c) if he were to participate in negotiations with the local education association when his father-in-law is a custodian in the District and the Board member lives with the father-in-law and co-owns his home with the father-in-law.

A Board member employed in another District may participate in discussions involving the Superintendent's contract and vote in the election of a new Board President even though the member's direct supervisor is also a member of the same Board since it appears no benefit would enure to you or the other Board member. In the future, should the facts change creating a benefit to the Board member or his supervisor, either member may have to recuse him/herself from such involvement.

A Board member would violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) if he were to participate in the negotiation of the local collective bargaining agreement when he is a secretary in another district who is subject to a local union contract.

A Board member would violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) if he were to participate in the interview and selection process for a new Chief School Administrator when a stepdaughter, stepdaughter-in-law and nephew are employed by the District as certified teachers.

A Board member would violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) if he were to negotiate or be involved in discussions with the local New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) affiliate when the Board member is employed in a different district and represented by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), a different state-wide teachers union.

A Board member who is aware he has conflicts is directed to the Martinez v. Abolino (C45-11) decision which prohibits the Board members participation in pre- and post-employment decisions involving the Superintendent and other administrators. He retains the rights of the public, however, and may attend the public session of Board meetings where those matters are discussed.

A Board member who owns a company which does business with the District must recuse him/herself from all matters related to that relationship. If the relationship is contractual the contract may run its course but not be renewed. If the relationship is individual severable transactions, the Board must find a new company for future business needs. Failure to do so would implicate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c).

A Board member whose spouse is employed with the District in a position classified either as a paraprofessional or substitute-paraprofessional may not participate in any employment or personnel issues of those who have influence over or affect the spouse's employment in any manner. N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c). Change in the spouse's title does not remove the conflict.

A Board member may not solicit on behalf of his business through leaflet distribution in the schools and must forego fundraising events where the Board member's business charges for participation and personally profits either monetarily or from promise of future business as a result of the event. N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) and (f).

A Board member whose son is employed as a summer student worker or whose spouse is employed as a substitute in the District may not participate in any discussion pre- or post-hire, may not engage in any aspect of the vetting process, evaluation, contract discussion or vote regarding the Superintendent's employment. The prohibition includes the selection committee or firm which will conduct the search for the Superintendent. These limitations exist as long as: 1) the son is employed with the District as a summer student worker; or, 2) for the duration of time that the spouse is employed as a substitute teacher in the District. N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c).

A Board member would violate multiple subsections of the Code of Ethics for School Board Members, N.J.S.A.18A:12-24.1 etseq., if he were to volunteer in any aspect of school-sponsored theatrical events, as the responsibilities of a volunteer inherently conflict with those of a Board member who serves the school community in an executive role.

A Board member would not violate the School Ethics Act if his employment with a company which contracts with the District continues in matters unrelated to the Board member's subject area of employment. The Commission noted, however, that changes to the Board member's employment or the relationship between the District and the company may give rise to possible violations of the School Ethics Act in the future.

A Board member's long-standing affiliation with the NJEA over the course of his career, prior to retiring and serving on the Board, is too extensive and as such the member must recuse him/herself from participating in any and all Board actions connected to the NJEA and local union. This prohibition extends for the duration of the Board member's term or the length of his service on the Board. N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and (c).

A Superintendent who resides with a non-dependent child employed in another District, and receives benefits from the collective bargaining agreement in the other District, may not participate in negotiations between the Board and local union affiliate. N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b).

A Board member, who is employed by a day care center which contracts with the Board/District, must recuse him/herself from any and all Board actions which remotely touch upon the relationship between the Board/District and the day care center. N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), (c), (d) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f).

A Board member would violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) if he were to participate in the Collective Bargaining, Negotiation & Contract, which includes the vote on the contract, when a sister-in-law is employed by another district and is a member of its local education association.

Conflicted Board members may not vote on a motion to advertise for applicants for the position of Superintendent and may not vote on every aspect of the search and hire for a Superintendent without violating N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and (c). Similarly, this limitation is consistent with the bar on every Board action as they relate to an incumbent Superintendent, including the vote.

A Board member whose spouse is employed by the district as a per diem employee is conflicted and would violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) if he were to participate in Superintendent and certain other administrators' evaluations or if he were to vote on their contracts. Moreover, since the Board has a quorum of non-conflicted members, the Doctrine of Necessity cannot be invoked even if the vote is tied.